Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

My wife, for whatever reason, is looking at getting rid of hers in the next
year. Wants something a little bigger -- like a Trailblazer or something.

I'm considering keeping hers and selling my TJ. I could sell my TJ for far
more than I owe on it (her XJ is "upside down" right now). Besides, that XJ
is the limited version and has just about every bell and whistle on it. Add
a long arm kit, some lockers, 33s... man, it'd be sweet!

Eric
99 TJ SE
00 XJ LTD
"Ed J." <ej_000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:an1bt09rpdhd4qfpu02sfljs9iqet0c0ed@4ax.com...
> handywired@aol.com (Handywired) wrote:
>
>>So... how do cherokees hold up once they get some miles piled on 'em? I'd
>>get
>>the 4.0L with the auto tranny most likely.
>
> 92 XJ Laredo, 4.0 auto - 220,000 miles (not km). Total maint/repair
> cost since new a little over $5000, including things like tires, state
> inspection, etc. (Yes, I keep a ------sheet :-) ) Only engine repairs
> were new radiator (upgrade), water pump, oil pump. Best vehicle I've
> ever owned, still runs strong. I'm looking for another (newer) one for
> the missus.
> -Ed

Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

My wife, for whatever reason, is looking at getting rid of hers in the next
year. Wants something a little bigger -- like a Trailblazer or something.

I'm considering keeping hers and selling my TJ. I could sell my TJ for far
more than I owe on it (her XJ is "upside down" right now). Besides, that XJ
is the limited version and has just about every bell and whistle on it. Add
a long arm kit, some lockers, 33s... man, it'd be sweet!

Eric
99 TJ SE
00 XJ LTD
"Ed J." <ej_000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:an1bt09rpdhd4qfpu02sfljs9iqet0c0ed@4ax.com...
> handywired@aol.com (Handywired) wrote:
>
>>So... how do cherokees hold up once they get some miles piled on 'em? I'd
>>get
>>the 4.0L with the auto tranny most likely.
>
> 92 XJ Laredo, 4.0 auto - 220,000 miles (not km). Total maint/repair
> cost since new a little over $5000, including things like tires, state
> inspection, etc. (Yes, I keep a ------sheet :-) ) Only engine repairs
> were new radiator (upgrade), water pump, oil pump. Best vehicle I've
> ever owned, still runs strong. I'm looking for another (newer) one for
> the missus.
> -Ed

Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

My wife, for whatever reason, is looking at getting rid of hers in the next
year. Wants something a little bigger -- like a Trailblazer or something.

I'm considering keeping hers and selling my TJ. I could sell my TJ for far
more than I owe on it (her XJ is "upside down" right now). Besides, that XJ
is the limited version and has just about every bell and whistle on it. Add
a long arm kit, some lockers, 33s... man, it'd be sweet!

Eric
99 TJ SE
00 XJ LTD
"Ed J." <ej_000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:an1bt09rpdhd4qfpu02sfljs9iqet0c0ed@4ax.com...
> handywired@aol.com (Handywired) wrote:
>
>>So... how do cherokees hold up once they get some miles piled on 'em? I'd
>>get
>>the 4.0L with the auto tranny most likely.
>
> 92 XJ Laredo, 4.0 auto - 220,000 miles (not km). Total maint/repair
> cost since new a little over $5000, including things like tires, state
> inspection, etc. (Yes, I keep a ------sheet :-) ) Only engine repairs
> were new radiator (upgrade), water pump, oil pump. Best vehicle I've
> ever owned, still runs strong. I'm looking for another (newer) one for
> the missus.
> -Ed

Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

>So who gave them a terrible reliablity rating? And what exactly was used to
>determine that rating? I've seen nothing but bulletproof 4.0L XJs running
>around everywhere.

They are generally rated low by the places that do that. Consumer Reports
hates them (not that that matters to me)... truth is, "they" say the TJ should
suck too but mine has been an excellent vehicle.

However, I guess what I was talkig about was the sort of overall opinion out
there that they are not reliable vehicles. I have heard the story several
times, from different people, that tow truck drivers say they are the #1
vehicle they pick up. Also if you do web searches you will find a few cases
where companies bought them as fleet vehicles and really regretted it,
according to the posters. I did a Google archive search the other day and
found at least two such instances.

But that's actually all OK! What matters to ME is what the actual owners of
the things say, and everyone seems to like them a lot. Plus they are like half
the price of, say, a 4-runner...

-jeff

Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

>So who gave them a terrible reliablity rating? And what exactly was used to
>determine that rating? I've seen nothing but bulletproof 4.0L XJs running
>around everywhere.

They are generally rated low by the places that do that. Consumer Reports
hates them (not that that matters to me)... truth is, "they" say the TJ should
suck too but mine has been an excellent vehicle.

However, I guess what I was talkig about was the sort of overall opinion out
there that they are not reliable vehicles. I have heard the story several
times, from different people, that tow truck drivers say they are the #1
vehicle they pick up. Also if you do web searches you will find a few cases
where companies bought them as fleet vehicles and really regretted it,
according to the posters. I did a Google archive search the other day and
found at least two such instances.

But that's actually all OK! What matters to ME is what the actual owners of
the things say, and everyone seems to like them a lot. Plus they are like half
the price of, say, a 4-runner...

-jeff

Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

>So who gave them a terrible reliablity rating? And what exactly was used to
>determine that rating? I've seen nothing but bulletproof 4.0L XJs running
>around everywhere.

They are generally rated low by the places that do that. Consumer Reports
hates them (not that that matters to me)... truth is, "they" say the TJ should
suck too but mine has been an excellent vehicle.

However, I guess what I was talkig about was the sort of overall opinion out
there that they are not reliable vehicles. I have heard the story several
times, from different people, that tow truck drivers say they are the #1
vehicle they pick up. Also if you do web searches you will find a few cases
where companies bought them as fleet vehicles and really regretted it,
according to the posters. I did a Google archive search the other day and
found at least two such instances.

But that's actually all OK! What matters to ME is what the actual owners of
the things say, and everyone seems to like them a lot. Plus they are like half
the price of, say, a 4-runner...

-jeff

Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 05:38:07 +0000, DaveW wrote:

> For some reason, they seem to test vacuum cleaners almost monthly, but
> avoid some other common household items. I came to the conclusion that
> these days, they suck.

Damn,... and I was looking for that VAC review, 'cause the last one was
back in July. I guess that blows that "almost monthy" crap all to hell.

>> I wouldn't say they were bought and paid for, as then you would
>> presume that every now and then, they might accidentally get one
>> right.

You mean like those magazines that have 6-page ads in the issue where
the Company's car is reviewed. Naw... there's no 6-digit pressure to put
out a "favorable" review there, eh?

>> ...and totally clueless on anything more complex than a toothpick.

While some of their print comes across as a bit shallow, it's
understandable considering the limited amount of space alloted to some
items. I'd venture that they probably collect as much information on the
vehicles they test as many car magazines, but distilling it down to a page
of sniplets leaves lots to be desired.

>> L.W.(ßill) ------ III proclaimed:
>>> Consumer (Reports?)magazine is bought and paid for.

You have proof of this? If so, how about sharing it with the world.
Better yet, how about a website proclaiming it with your "proof."

>>> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>>> I remember Consumer Report's auto issue a few years back, it listed
>>>> the Cherokee with a poor reliability rating even though the majority
>>>> of its member-reported system by system ratings were average or
>>>> better than average. In contrast, one of the Toyota models had worse
>>>> than average system
>>>> by system ratings but a better than average overall reliability
>>>> rating.

That's what happens when you look at the pictures but don't read. They
state that some sections of their reliability reports are weighed more
than others in factoring for a reccomendation.

--

-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2

Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 05:38:07 +0000, DaveW wrote:

> For some reason, they seem to test vacuum cleaners almost monthly, but
> avoid some other common household items. I came to the conclusion that
> these days, they suck.

Damn,... and I was looking for that VAC review, 'cause the last one was
back in July. I guess that blows that "almost monthy" crap all to hell.

>> I wouldn't say they were bought and paid for, as then you would
>> presume that every now and then, they might accidentally get one
>> right.

You mean like those magazines that have 6-page ads in the issue where
the Company's car is reviewed. Naw... there's no 6-digit pressure to put
out a "favorable" review there, eh?

>> ...and totally clueless on anything more complex than a toothpick.

While some of their print comes across as a bit shallow, it's
understandable considering the limited amount of space alloted to some
items. I'd venture that they probably collect as much information on the
vehicles they test as many car magazines, but distilling it down to a page
of sniplets leaves lots to be desired.

>> L.W.(ßill) ------ III proclaimed:
>>> Consumer (Reports?)magazine is bought and paid for.

You have proof of this? If so, how about sharing it with the world.
Better yet, how about a website proclaiming it with your "proof."

>>> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>>> I remember Consumer Report's auto issue a few years back, it listed
>>>> the Cherokee with a poor reliability rating even though the majority
>>>> of its member-reported system by system ratings were average or
>>>> better than average. In contrast, one of the Toyota models had worse
>>>> than average system
>>>> by system ratings but a better than average overall reliability
>>>> rating.

That's what happens when you look at the pictures but don't read. They
state that some sections of their reliability reports are weighed more
than others in factoring for a reccomendation.

--

-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2

Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 05:38:07 +0000, DaveW wrote:

> For some reason, they seem to test vacuum cleaners almost monthly, but
> avoid some other common household items. I came to the conclusion that
> these days, they suck.

Damn,... and I was looking for that VAC review, 'cause the last one was
back in July. I guess that blows that "almost monthy" crap all to hell.

>> I wouldn't say they were bought and paid for, as then you would
>> presume that every now and then, they might accidentally get one
>> right.

You mean like those magazines that have 6-page ads in the issue where
the Company's car is reviewed. Naw... there's no 6-digit pressure to put
out a "favorable" review there, eh?

>> ...and totally clueless on anything more complex than a toothpick.

While some of their print comes across as a bit shallow, it's
understandable considering the limited amount of space alloted to some
items. I'd venture that they probably collect as much information on the
vehicles they test as many car magazines, but distilling it down to a page
of sniplets leaves lots to be desired.

>> L.W.(ßill) ------ III proclaimed:
>>> Consumer (Reports?)magazine is bought and paid for.

You have proof of this? If so, how about sharing it with the world.
Better yet, how about a website proclaiming it with your "proof."

>>> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>>> I remember Consumer Report's auto issue a few years back, it listed
>>>> the Cherokee with a poor reliability rating even though the majority
>>>> of its member-reported system by system ratings were average or
>>>> better than average. In contrast, one of the Toyota models had worse
>>>> than average system
>>>> by system ratings but a better than average overall reliability
>>>> rating.

That's what happens when you look at the pictures but don't read. They
state that some sections of their reliability reports are weighed more
than others in factoring for a reccomendation.

--

-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2

Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search
I'm not intending to imply insult or judgment here but I am curious
to know in order to be able to respond to your posts in an appropriate
manner, so please forgive what appears to be, but in fact is not
intended as, an insulting question: Are you stupid?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

"F. Robert Falbo" wrote:
>
> Damn,... and I was looking for that VAC review, 'cause the last one was
> back in July. I guess that blows that "almost monthy" crap all to hell.
>
> You mean like those magazines that have 6-page ads in the issue where
> the Company's car is reviewed. Naw... there's no 6-digit pressure to put
> out a "favorable" review there, eh?
>
> While some of their print comes across as a bit shallow, it's
> understandable considering the limited amount of space alloted to some
> items. I'd venture that they probably collect as much information on the
> vehicles they test as many car magazines, but distilling it down to a page
> of sniplets leaves lots to be desired.
>
> You have proof of this? If so, how about sharing it with the world.
> Better yet, how about a website proclaiming it with your "proof."
>
> That's what happens when you look at the pictures but don't read. They
> state that some sections of their reliability reports are weighed more
> than others in factoring for a reccomendation.
>
> --
>
> -bob-
> _______________________
> SuSE LINUX 9.2